Patterns of public participation

Slutsky, Jean; Tumilty, Emma; Max, Catherine; Lu, Lanting; Tantivess, Sripen; Hauegen, Renata Curi; Whitty, Jennifer A.; Weale, Albert; Pearson, Steven D.; Tugendhaft, Aviva; Wang, Hufeng; Staniszewska, Sophie; Weerasuriya, K; Ahn, Jeonghoon; Cubillos, Leonardo

doi:10.1108/jhom-03-2016-0037

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cross-system studies of public involvement in health are challenging and rare (Slutsky et al, 2016), but in the UK, our research suggests that Governments, while frequently espousing broadly collaborative visions of involvement, both struggle to have organisations enact them at the local level, and often make wider decisions which make those visions more difficult to realise. Where the organisational landscape is chaotic and fast-changing, as in England, rapid 'transformation' was valued.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Transforming health care: the policy and politics of service reconfiguration in the UK's four health systems

Stewart

Greer

Ercia

et al. 2019

HEPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public involvement in service change has been identified as a key facilitator of health care transformation (Foley et al., 2017) but little is known about how health policy influences whether and how organisations involve the public in change processes. This qualitative study compares policy and practice for involving the public in major service changes across the UK's four health systems (England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland). We analysed policy documents, and conducted interviews with officials, stakeholders, NHS staff and public campaigners (total number of interviewees = 47). Involving the public in major service change was acknowledged as a policy challenge in all four systems. Despite ostensible similarities, there were some clear differences between the four health systems' processes for involving patients and the public in major changes to health services. The extent of central Government oversight, the prescriptiveness of Government guidance, the role for intermediary bodies and arrangements for independent scrutiny of contentious decisions all vary. We analyse how health policy in the four systems has used ‘sticks’ and ‘sermons’ to promote particular approaches, and conclude that both policy and the wider system context within which health care organisations try to effect change are significant, and understudied aspect of contemporary practice.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Transforming health care: the policy and politics of service reconfiguration in the UK's four health systems

Stewart

Greer

Ercia

et al. 2019

HEPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 While public engagement is widely endorsed, many questions remain about how best to achieve this. 2,[13][14][15] Methods of engaging the public in priority setting fall broadly into non-deliberative and deliberative processes. Nondeliberative methods may be consultative in nature, but they do not provide the same degree of consideration, nor of twoway communication and debate that deliberative methods offer.…”

Section: Key Messagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

CHAT SA: Modification of a Public Engagement Tool for Priority Setting for a South African Rural Context

Tugendhaft

Danis

Christofides

et al. 2020

Int J Health Policy Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Globally, as countries move towards universal health coverage (UHC), public participation in decisionmaking is particularly valuable to inform difficult decisions about priority setting and resource allocation. In South Africa (SA), which is moving towards UHC, public participation in decision-making is entrenched in policy documents yet practical applications are lacking. Engagement methods that are deliberative could be useful in ensuring the public participates in the priority setting process that is evidence-based, ethical, legitimate, sustainable and inclusive. Methods modified for the country context may be more relevant and effective. To prepare for such a deliberative process in SA, we aimed to modify a specific deliberative engagement tool – the CHAT (Choosing All Together) tool for use in a rural setting. Methods: Desktop review of published literature and policy documents, as well as 3 focus groups and modified Delphi method were conducted to identify health topics/issues and related interventions appropriate for a rural setting in SA. Our approach involved a high degree of community and policy-maker/expert participation. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Cost information was drawn from various national sources and an existing actuarial model used in previous CHAT exercises was employed to create the board. Results: Based on the outcomes, 7 health topics/issues and related interventions specific for a rural context were identified and costed for inclusion. These include maternal, new-born and reproductive health; child health; woman and child abuse; HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis (TB); lifestyle diseases; access; and malaria. There were variations in priorities between the 3 stakeholder groups, with community-based groups emphasizing issues of access. Violence against women and children and malaria were considered important in the rural context. Conclusion: The CHAT SA board reflects health topics/issues specific for a rural setting in SA and demonstrates some of the context-specific coverage decisions that will need to be made. Methodologies that include participatory principles are useful for the modification of engagement tools like CHAT and can be applied in different country contexts in order to ensure these tools are relevant and acceptable. This could in turn impact the success of the implementation, ultimately ensuring more effective priority setting approaches.

show abstract

“…There is for example no agreed nomenclature with participation, engagement and involvement often being used interchangeably. There is also great variation, dependant on the country's historical development of democracy, in the mix of institutionalized vs. contestory forms of involvement in healthcare (Slutsky et al, 2016). Within the UK context, involvement within health research funding tends be embedded within institutionalized mechanisms and processes.…”

Section: Defining Ppi and Co-productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Co-production Just a Pipe Dream for Applied Health Research Commissioning? An Exploratory Literature Review

Tembo

Morrow²,

Worswick

et al. 2019

Front. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Rationale: Internationally, the idea of "co-production' has become more popular in health research because of the promise of partnership between researchers and patients to create research that focuses on patients' needs. Patient and public involvement (PPI) at an early stage in deciding what research should be funded, can improve the quality and impact of research. However, professional power over the process places limits on the public practising their participatory rights for involvement in commissioning research that affects them and can leave members of the public feeling unheard or excluded, particularly within the context of early phase applied health research. Aim: This article explores whether and how the public can be involved in the co-production of research commissioning early on in the process, with a focus on the power relations that pervade basic and early phase translational applied health research. Methods: An exploratory literature review of international peer-reviewed and gray health research literature using structured searches of electronic databases and key search terms. Results: There is very little literature that critically evaluates how PPI is embedded into the early phases of the commissioning process. The field of basic or early translational applied research appear to be particularly challenging. Four themes which emerged from the review are: reasons for PPI in research commissioning; benefits of PPI at strategic levels of research commissioning; contributions of patients and members of the public; improving PPI in research commissioning. Conclusion: Although the public are being consulted at some stages of the research commissioning process, it is evident that the process of determining research priorities and agendas is far from being widely co-produced. Moving PPI from a consultative paternalistic model to a collaborative partnership model should be a priority for commissioners. Significant changes to communication, practices, systems, structures, or cultures that exclude patients and the public from contributing in meaningful ways, are needed to fulfill the potential of co-produced models of research commissioning.

show abstract

Patterns of public participation

Cited by 20 publications

References 25 publications

Transforming health care: the policy and politics of service reconfiguration in the UK's four health systems

Transforming health care: the policy and politics of service reconfiguration in the UK's four health systems

CHAT SA: Modification of a Public Engagement Tool for Priority Setting for a South African Rural Context

Is Co-production Just a Pipe Dream for Applied Health Research Commissioning? An Exploratory Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About